Re: New list charters

On Mon, 31 Jul 2000, Nathan Torkington wrote:

> Perhaps changed RFCs need to have a CHANGES section that describes
> the changes between the last version and this one.  Not an entire
> change history, which is pointless given mail archives.  I'm merely
> thinking of a brief summary of what's different.  Something on the
> order of:
> 
>   more examples, added possible threading implementation, discussed
>   interaction with formats.
> 
> That way an observer wants to keep up but not participate in the day
> to day blab fest can find out which sections they need to read.
> 
> Comments?
> 

I was thinking that the day-to-day blab fests wouldn't make the RFC in
the first place.

I was assuming something akin to:

1- RFC submission, version 1

2- thrash to death in a list

3- Consensus change to RFC, version 2

4- thrash to death with no results

5- new info requires change

6- Consensus change to RFC, version 3

In this case, only the changes would be enumerated within the RFC, not
the discussions that preceded or ensued.

=head2 CHANGES

=over 4

=item 1

  Created.

=item 2

  Changed "foo is a silly name for a variable" to "foo is a most
juanderful name for a variable"

=item 3

  Added L<this>.

=back

If the changes got to be too many, you could roll the last n number off.
Keep the latest 5, mayhaps?

I don't mind searching the archives for the particular arguments on why
a change was made; I just want an easy way to determine that we've
already been over some ground before for whatever reason.

  -- 
Bryan C. Warnock
([email protected])